session_tree

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the description provides useful context about output scope (all sessions, relationships, status). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor disclose potential caveats like performance on large trees or exact output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and impactful, using two clear sentences and a powerful analogy. Every sentence earns its place; the analogy gives immediate mental model without extra wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description conveys the core purpose and what is shown. However, with no output schema, it leaves the exact return format unspecified, and it does not discuss output ordering, size limits, or whether the tree is textual or graphical. The description is adequate but not rich.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes project_root with full coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond mapping 'this project' to project_root, so it does not meaningfully compensate for or extend the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Show') and resource ('full session tree'), and adds useful detail about what is shown: all sessions, their relationships, and status. The git log --graph analogy helps convey the tree/graph nature, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like session_status or session_diagram.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as session_status, session_log, or session_diagram. The description implies it is for viewing the whole graph, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.